One American Citizen

The View Of An American Citizen
expr:class='"loading" + data:blog.mobileClass'>

ad top

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Democrats Pulling Shady Moves in Washington to Pass The AG's Agenda

     Drama is unfolding in Olympia over the magazine ban bills. The patriots of Washington breathed a small sigh of relief on February 19th after HB2240 failed to beat the 5pm cutoff for policy related bills. The republican succeeded in stopping HB2240 by introducing over 120 amendments to the bill. Each amendment would have had to have been debated and voted on before a final vote could be held which was essentially impossible given the time constraint. Democrats were not ready to give up. On February 20th democrats submitted a new bill, HB2947. This new bill has the same language but adds a magazine buyback program using taxpayer money. This is significant because it now makes it a budget related bill and not subject to any deadline other than it has to be passed by both chambers by March 12th. The other major development is that this bill has an emergency declaration. This means that this bill cannot be repealed by referendum essentially stripping us the powers reserved for us by the Washington State Constitution.
    In my opinion this was a power move by the liberal wing of our government. I believe that they are willing to ignore the constitution and the will of the people in order to get this through. I know this because the only reason they wanted to declare an emergency in the bill is because they wanted to prevent a referendum that would repeal it. Not only that, they are trying to pass a bill that would only allow initiatives and referendums to be voted on in even years when the liberal vote is up 4% over the conservative vote essentially stacking the deck in their favor. Whats more concerning is that our Attorney General is behind this bill even though it is not his duty to request legislation. In fact, he is responsible for defending the laws of the state against lawsuit so it would create a serious problem if it is brought up on constitutional grounds in court and is ruled unconstitutional. At that point we would have an attorney general who is openly pushing laws that are illegal.
      It is no secret that our Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, has a weird and completely baseless obsession with high (standard) capacity. In a minority report (click here for report) to the Mass Shooting Work Group of 2018, Bob Ferguson basically threw a temper tantrum that they did not recommend a law limiting the capacity of magazines. Now he is requesting that the democrats in the legislature push this ban anyway. As you can see from the screen shot below, he and Governor Inslee both are behind the magazine ban.

       So why is he so hell bent on getting this magazine ban passed? To me the answer is simple. He wants to be Governor in the future. He wants this magazine ban as something that he can tout during his campaign for governor to appeal to his left wing supporters. This is something he can go on the record and say "I have prevented these magazines from being sold in Washington". He wants this even if it has a high probability of being ruled unconstitutional because even if its overturned, he will just point blame at the court for "making this a more dangerous state". It's all a game to him. I don't think any politician seriously believes that a magazine ban is going to prevent a mass shooter but the problem is, the liberal voters in this state gobble up that propaganda and vote based on these unfounded beliefs. Bob Ferguson literally wants his supporters to believe that the blame for mass shootings lies at the feet of conservative gun owners and that we are the enemy for wanting to keep our "assault weapons" and "high" capacity mags. He knows that if he pushed sensible solutions like mental healthcare and risk assessment in schools, he couldn't use that as fodder to get votes in the next election. He is the most corrupt politician in this state, if not country at this point in time. 

So just remember, Bob Ferguson and the rest of the liberal politicians are willing to strip you of your rights just to get votes. 

-American Citizen

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Washington Democrats Taking Power From The People.

      Want proof that the democrats want as much control as possible over the People? Look no further than the Washington State House of Representatives and the Washington State Senate. This session, a pair of bills was introduced that would basically cancel most voting topics in odd year elections. Why? I think it's a little deeper than what it appears to be on the surface
       The sponsors of these bills are citing lower voter turnout, however this is not necessarily accurate. According to a memo put out by the Washington Policy Center,  Political Sciences Professor Zoltan Hajnal of USC San Diego, who gave testimony at the hearing for HB2529, noted that having most elections in even years increased the liberal vote by 4% and increased the democrat vote by 4%. That would mean that any initiative, referendum, or any other issue being voted on that would have had an odd year vote, would now be subject to a higher voter turnout for the left. That is exactly what they want. They want to stack the deck so that initiatives and referendums that the democrats support have a higher likely hood of getting passed and those they object have a higher chance of getting voted down.
     Now, had they just canceled the odd year elections all together citing low voter turnout, they may have had some credibility, but that's not what happened. They are still allowing for local elections for government officials and tax increases so no matter what, ballots are still going to be sent out. So why would they allow tax increases to be voted on but not initiatives or referendums? Its all part of the scheme. Taxes generally get approved by a wider margin that Initiatives (which is crazy to me to think that people will almost always vote their money away) so they don't need the extra turnout. Here are some examples of Initiatives vs taxes from 2019.

 Initiatives and Referendums

- Referendum 88 (affirmative action) - Rejected 49.4% to 50.6%
- Initiative 976 ($30 car tabs) - Passed 53% to 47%
       -(both not in the democrats favor)

Tax Increases
- King County Prop 1 (Medic One Levy) - Passed 80.8% to 19.2%
- City of Duvall Prop 1 (Sales tax for roads) - Passed 71.6% to 28.4%
       -(both in the democrats favor)

      As you can see from the numbers, both the initiative and the referendum were passed or rejected with less than 54% and had the left had that extra 4% voter turnout, the outcome would have been different. As we are peeling back this onion, the truth is beginning to become clear. The democrats in the legislature want the advantage so the votes on citizen initiatives and referendums go in their favor, but do not want the taxing power of local governments inhibited. From the last election results, you can see local tax levy votes overwhelmingly get passed. They don't need that extra turnout to pass taxes. 
      So is this legal? No, not at all and if our supreme court is actually an unbiased court (which I highly doubt) they will come to the same conclusion. Our Washington State Constitution specifically says that the initiative process cant be hindered. Here is exactly what is says:

Article 1 Section 34: SAME
"...that the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people..."
     That is pretty cut and dry. The legislators do not have authority to limit our right to initiative or referendum and this is exactly what they are trying to do. They are trying to make it difficult to change laws which is already hard to do with the supreme court full of political activist. Just today the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the clearly ILLEGAL valuation of vehicles for sound transits car tabs fee can stay in place strictly because it would strip funding for projects that are part of the liberal agenda. So even though we have a bias court to deal with, we must retain the power that we have, without it they will strip us of our rights and take more of our money. 
-American Citizen


Wednesday, February 12, 2020

The Democrats Can’t Give Up
     Let’s face it, the democrats can’t give up on the attacks against the President. They can’t do it because they are literally in a hole that the only way they can get out is if they dig through to the other side. Every single attempt to “get” the President has failed. It started with the Stormy Daniels payments. Did he sleep with her? most likely but does that constitute an impeachable offense even if he paid her to keep quiet? No and the democrats and media learned that the hard way. The only result was a few people going to jail for financial crimes unrelated to the case.
     Next was the Russia Investigation. For 2 years the media and the democrats held the country hostage with the Mueller investigation. The talking heads on the TV would constantly over anylize the smallest development. It got to the point that the panels on TV could go on for hours about a tweet the President wrote debating whether it was the smoking gun or not. BOTH sides of the media lost their mind. I had to stop watching Hannity for awhile because he was like a broken record! Constantly talking about the bombshell developements about the deep state. Yea he had some good points and made a solid case against the Mueller investigation, but you can only listen to the same thing night after night for so long. 
     The Mueller investigation came up empty. The left will tell you that it was a damning indictment when it was absolutely the opposite. It was merely as statement of “well he might be obstructing if he had done this with this intent”. It was nothing. Nothing worth dividing this country over like it did. The only winner in that two years was the media executives because they made a ton of money on their coverage of that investigation. It’s funny, the liberal media talks about income inequality but they fail to hold the people making the money off that same media accountable. 
      Finally we get to impeachment. No matter how you look at it, whether you are pro impeachment or against it, it was mishandled. As soon as that whistleblower came forward they should have launched an official impeachment inquiry, we all know that didn’t happen. No, Adam Schiff wanted to have secret hearings in the bunker at the capital so the media and the Republicans could not see what was going on. He wanted this so he could strategically leak information to his friends in the media and set the tone for the official investigation. They knew they had a weak case and they knew that they would need the media to start the speculation and conjecture machine up prior to public testimony so the public would already have a bias as to whether President Trump should be impeached. Obviously it didn’t work and now they are in a tough spot. 
     Here we are today with the Democrats plotting their next attack on the President, they have a little under 9 months to either drag this President down or get him out of office. If they fail, they know they are all in trouble come November and they know with certainty that they don’t have a candidate that can beat Trump. So what is next is up in the air but I can say with almost certainty, stay tuned for the next manufactured constitutional crisis curtesy of the Democrats 

-American Citizen 

Just for fun, Check out how many more votes Trump got in the NH primary compared to other incumbent presidents!

Why The Electoral College Is Important
     With the presidential election coming up this November, I am sure the debate around the  Electoral College will rear its ugly head again. On side thinks the popular vote should be the only vote that counts, and the other thinks its one of the most important provisions in the Constitution. I personally believe that the Electoral College is more important today than it was at the forming of this nation. Before I get into why, let's take a look at why it is there in the first place.
      The Electoral College was a compromise between two sides during the writing of the Constitution. One side wanted a straight popular vote so that it could be a truly democratic election, the other wanted congress to elect the president. They finally came to an agreement where the popular vote of the individual state would select the electors who would then cast their vote for president. This was done for three reasons. First, to satisfy those who wanted congress to have the power, it prevented uninformed voters from directly electing a president who was not qualified or who could turn into a tyrannical leader like the king they had just left. It installed a middleman in between the people and the presidency so if need be, the electors could go against the will of the people if it was necessary to prevent a dangerous president. Second, to satisfy those who wanted a popular vote, it allowed the people to have some form of direct say in the election and did not give the power to congress. It was feared that a congressional election could lead to corruption between the executive and legislative branch when deciding the presidency. Third, the most important reason for today's elections, it prevent a "mob rule" elections meaning that the population centers of the country couldn't decide the election on their own.
      One of the misconceptions of our country is that we are a democracy when in fact we are a constitutional republic. While the terms can be used synonymously in most cases, it is important when discussing elections. Under a true democracy, the majority always rules meaning a direct popular vote for all elections. Our framers decided that this was not okay and that's why we have a constitution that protects the rights of the minority. In our republic, the minority has the right to have a meaningful say in our presidential election and that is facilitated by the Electoral college.
    So why is its so important for modern elections? It is important for the same reason it was at our countries founding, to prevent a small geographic area from having complete control over the presidency. In recent years, our major population centers on the coasts have become increasingly more liberal while less populated rural areas have remained conservative. Rural conservative areas account for a vast majority of the geographic area of the United States. If we went to a popular vote, it would mean that areas centered around cities would be able to elect a politician that fit only their needs and not the needs of Middle America. It would lead to politicians only campaigning and designing policies to entice the voters in the cities. Candidates would not even bother stopping in states that have low populations because it wouldn't be worth the time and money when they could target a lot of voters in states like California and New York. This would ultimately lead to an entire region of the United States being stepped on and forgotten by politicians only looking to make policies that would help them get the votes in the next elections.
    With the country divided as it is, the Electoral College is even more important. President Trump is not popular in a majority of the big cities because he campaigns against most of their progressive views. While cities may want gun control, nearly all rural areas want their second amendment protected. Liberals want free college, while the conservatives don't want to pay more in taxes for someone in California to get a liberal arts degree. Most importantly, progressives want major taxes and regulation when it comes to climate change and carbon, while there are a lot of jobs dependent on fossil fuels in the "fly over" states. The people living in the cities tend to forget where their food comes from. If liberals could elect a president that didn't have to care about the farmland states, surely fossil fuels would be a huge target of the new progressive leader. If they got their way, fuel needed for farming and the transport of that food from Middle America to the cities, would become so expensive that the cost of living everywhere would increase dramatically likely causing complaints from those same people that voted that president in. It is so important for all of the United States to have a say in the election because it ultimately benefits everyone. It forces candidates from all parties to make campaign stops in rural America, to craft policies that are positive for everyone and not the few. It can make a small, less populated state a deciding factor in the elections.

    For those who lean left and claim that the Electoral College isn't fair, let me ask you this? How would you feel if the roles were reversed and and Middle America always got to decide the direction of the country based on their needs without regard for your needs? In my opinion it would be just as destructive to the country. We need the Electoral College to make our president accountable to everyone.

-American Citizen
Sign Up for My Weekly Newsletter for Great Updates on Firearm News and Bill Status

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

The Climate LIE

    Climate Change is a HOAX! There I said it. I’m not saying this because I don’t care about the planet nor am I saying this because I don’t think humans are impacting the climate. I am saying this because it’s not a crisis. This is a manufactured crisis that the left has created to instill fear into their followers. My own state has gotten irrational about climate change claiming we should spend billions on the matter when the legislation would result in less than one-tenth of one percent reduction in greenhouse gasses globally. The cost benefit factor just doesn’t add up to me because all you have to do is follow the money.
    In Washington, the 2018, Governor Jay Inslee endorsed, I-1631 carbon tax would have cost the average household $325 a year in direct cost, most likely more in indirect cost. In total it would have raised close to $1 billion dollars by 2023. That is a staggering number to say the least but how the money is spent is even more startling. The initiative said this:

    (1) The clean up pollution fund is created in the state treasury. All receipts collected from the pollution fee imposed by this chapter must be deposited in the fund. The department of revenue is authorized to create subfunds or subaccounts as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the purposes of this chapter. Receipts collected from the pollution fee imposed by this chapter may only be spent after appropriation into the clean up pollution fund.
    (2) After reasonable administrative costs:
    (a) Seventy percent of total expenditures under this act must be used for the clean air and clean energy investments authorized under section 4 of this act;
    (b) Twenty-five percent of total expenditures under this act must be used for the clean water and healthy forests investments authorized under section 5 of this act; and
    (c) Five percent of total expenditures under this act must be used for the healthy communities investments authorized under section 6 of this act.

    The line in red is quite literally a red flag. My first thought is what is reasonable? These cost are taken off the top before any disbursements are made meaning all salaries, supplies, travel cost, meeting cost, building cost, and many more things are taken out of that new account prior to any of the money going to climate related cost. That would most likely have meant that millions of dollars a year would have disappeared because of the bureaucracy it would have created. How many six figure jobs would have been created for them to fill with their friends? How many people behind the petition would have gotten those jobs? It’s unknown but I can speculate that it would have been a lot of people making a lot of money off the taxpayers back.
    The green line is also concerning, not because of what it says in that line, but because of one line item that is included in section four of the initiative, where seventy percent of the money is supposed to go. It reads as follows:

    (ii) Reduce vehicle miles traveled or increase public transportation, including investing in public transit, transportation demand management, nonmotorized transportation, affordable transit-oriented housing, and high-speed rural broadband to facilitate telecommuting options such as telemedicine or online job training;

    This line basically means that seventy percent of the available funds after the administration cost can go to mass transit and affordable housing. It’s unknown how much money would have gone there but it’s pretty clear to me that this was written in to be able to divert funds to projects that are hard to get funding for under the guise of “climate change”. I can only speculate that this money would have gone to Sound Transit for ST3 projects now that the $30 tabs is most likely going to become a reality at some point. It also would have been diverted to Seattle for affordable housing programs under with the thought “more affordable housing closer to the city would result in less emissions”, but we know it would just be squandered away like all the other money has been. It would have basically been a way for all of Washington to pay in part for Seattle and King Counties problem of affordable housing
    There is much more in this bill that is horrible but this is part of the point I am trying to make. This initiative that was heralded as the cure for Washington’s climate problem was merely a way to divert funds to other programs and create more government jobs. I would say at least eighty-five percent of the money would have been open to diversion to other projects or the administrative cost of the new programs. But the big question is, Who would have benefited? It wouldn’t have been the climate because even if all this money was spent diligently, it would have had statistically zero effect on the worlds greenhouse emissions. It definitely wouldn’t have been the people of Washington because they would have taken a large pay cut through tax increases and job losses due to new regulations and taxes on business. I think the government would have won. New six figure jobs, able to draw money for transportation and housing projects that the people wouldn’t approve on their own, and all the while be able to say “we are leading the charge against climate change”.
    I’ll leave you with this. If all the politicians, celebrities, philanthropist, and others who are all telling us that we have a climate crisis actually cared about the climate, why don’t they practice what they preach? Why are they flying around on airplanes or staying in hotels that are not energy efficient? Why are their own homes producing a huge carbon footprint? Al Gore, the original climate alarmist in recent history, lives in a home that consumes 21 times the amount of electricity as a normal house and only has 33 solar panels that produce just five percent of the homes demand. Just think about that, a guy going around telling you that you are killing the planet and that you need to change your ways won’t even make those changes himself. He doesn’t have too. He makes massive amounts of money whether is a polluter or not. Like I said, follow the money.

-American Citizen
Sign Up for My Weekly Newsletter for Great Updates on Firearm News and Bill Status

Monday, February 10, 2020

They ARE coming for your guns.

We have all heard the democrats tell us “We aren’t coming for your guns”. Well that was a total lie. FAKE NEWS as President Trump would put it. We are slowly but surely seeing bill introduced into state legislatures around the country. We attentive gun owners have seen the writing on the wall for some time now. They have been pushing common sense gun legislations and with the help of the media, have now turned weapon and magazine bans into common sense measures. Now eve Bernie Sanders is on the ban AR-15 ship that ultimately sunk Beto’s campaign.
    The most recent comes out of Arizona in Senate Bill 1625. In this bill they would make it illegal to buy or possess an “assault weapon” or a large capacity magazine. This is what we have been talking about. It’s no longer about reinstating the ban on the sale of these firearms, they are making it illegal to possess them. This particular bill has a clause in it so you can keep it, but with a catch. It reads as follows:

4.  If eligible, registers the assault weapon as provided in subsection d of this section.
     d.  To register an assault weapon that a person legally possessed before the effective date of this section, the person must comply with the following requirements:
     1.  Submit to a background check conducted by the appropriate law enforcement agency to confirm that the person is not a prohibited purchaser under 18 United States code section 922 or a prohibited possessor pursuant to section 13‑3101.
     2.  Unless the person is currently prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the appropriate law enforcement agency.
     3.  Safely and securely store the assault weapon pursuant to the rules adopted by the department of public safety.
     4.  Annually renew the registration, subject to completing a new background check.
     5.  Possess the assault weapon only:
      (a)  On property that the person owns or immediately controls.
      (b)  While on the premises of a licensed gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair.
      (c)  While engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range.
      (d)  While traveling to or from locations listed in this paragraph if the assault weapon is stored unloaded in a locked container during transport. For the purposes of this subdivision, locked container does not include the utility compartment, glove compartment or trunk of a motor vehicle.

     This basically means that you can possess it but must get a yearly background check, register it with the state so they know you have it, and can only take it to a licensed gun range. I am going to add a prediction to this. I believe they will pull a stunt like California did. They are going to require that all these firearms be register with the state, but then they will pass a law like “It is unlawful to own an “assault” weapon with a barrel length of less that 20 inches”. After this bill passes, they will scroll through the list of registered weapons and proceed to confiscate the newly illegal firearms. The only way you can keep that gun is if you say you lost it, but you damn well better not get caught with it in the future, otherwise you would be subject to prosecution for filing a false police report. They will continue to pass the new restriction on these laws until there are very few, if any, legal firearms left.
    This is how they are going to slow cook us. I use the analogy of the frog in boiling water.  If you put a front directly in boiling water, it will fight to get out because the water is hot, but if you put a frog in cold water and turn the stove on, it will sit there until it dies of the heat because its body is constantly adjusting to the rising temperature. Same goes for the liberals pushing these agendas. They know that if they put a bill out there that just outright bans firearms, the People will rise up against that, but if they slowly introduce restrictions over time, the pushback will be far less and manageable. We as gun owners, must rise up now to stop these agendas before we have so many restrictions and bans that it will be difficult to stand up to the government. The government is supposed to fear the people, not the other way around.

-American Citizen
Sign Up for My Weekly Newsletter for Great Updates on Firearm News and Bill Status

Background Checks for Private Firearm Sales

    When firearm owners hear the term “universal background checks” it usually sets off alarm bells as a bad idea. I tend to agree with that when the left is talking about it. But would it be a smart thing to require background checks for every firearm sale or transfer? I think it actually is a good idea if done right. My biggest fear when selling a firearm is that I end up selling it to a person who shouldn’t have one because of their criminal history. That is why right now I will only sell a firearm to a person I am familiar with.
    When people hear “universal background check” they immediately think that it will lead to a gun registry. No one wants the government to know what firearms they have. In Washington, we unfortunately have a database of every pistol, and now semi automatic rifle, transferred by a licensed firearms dealer. This is a cause for concern because if they decide to ban a class of firearm, they already know who purchased it. Under proposed legislation by the democrats, it would ultimately lead to a gun registry controlled by the federal government. My idea would prevent that and make it a simple process.
    In Washington, we have a mandatory background check to transfer a firearm to anyone other than a family member. This has caused a lot of problems and added cost because this must be completed by a dealer and also requires a holding period for the firearm. My proposal would eliminate the middle man. It would use the national instant background check system or a similar system designed by the state. It would be a system that could be accessed from a personal device at the time of sale and provide an instant answer to whether the proposed buyer is eligible to possess a firearm. After the buyer has input their info, verified to the seller by a drivers license, the system would simply give a a green check mark or a red X indicating whether the transfer could proceed. This would give a seller like me peace of mind that the person taking my firearm is not a known dangerous person.
    I think part of being a law abiding citizen is also being responsible for making sure the buyer of your firearm is also eligible to own a firearm. With this system, it would give the seller a read out of the transaction they would need to keep in their records as proof that the background check was completed and that the buyer was eligible to possess a firearm at the time of sale. If a seller opted not to do a background check and it is proven that the buyer was not an eligible person at the time of sale, they could be held partially liable for any crimes committed using the weapon they sold. Some may call this infringement, I call it responsibility. Just as a parent can be held responsible for their kids actions from being irresponsible, gun owners should be held accountable if they irresponsibly give a firearm to a known criminal.
    This system would not include a database that could turn into a registry because the only information input in the system would be details about the person, not about the firearm. This would prevent the government of knowing who owns what because the only possible information they could store was that a a background check was run on a person to determine eligibility for owning a firearm. I would also make it a requirement to have a process in place to dispute a denial. There are some instances where people are wrongly flagged as ineligible. This could be from a case of misidentify, or a previous charge that was resolved but not updated in the system. It would need to be a process that can easily be done.
    I think this system would satisfy the lefts call for background checks on every gun transfer while protecting the rights and causing very little inconvenience to gun owners. I know there are people who will disagree with this but it is flat out irresponsible to hand a firearm to a person you know nothing about. This would be a very small concession by gun owners and give the anti-gunners a big win in their eyes. At that point we could say “we gave you what you want, now get off our backs”. I think I speak for most gun owners that we don’t want criminals to have easy access to firearm, but at the same time, we don’t want to have to go to a dealer and pay extra fees just to buy or sell a gun.

-American Citizen
Sign Up for My Weekly Newsletter for Great Updates on Firearm News and Bill Status

Sunday, February 9, 2020

My Idea To Secure Firearm Rights In Washington.

     It seems that every legislative session these days, liberal lawmakers are continuing to try to pass bills that further restrict our right to firearm ownership and personal defense. I am going to be talking specifically about Washington but this is not an isolated issue. As we have seen in Virginia, even if 30,000 armed citizens show up to the capitol, they will keep pressing forward with their anti-gun agenda. I have proposed a fix to all of this and have even submitted a petition for review by the experts to see if this idea has merit.
    Right now as it stands, our gun rights can be infringed upon by a simple majority. Whether its congress or an initiative, it merely takes over 50% of a vote to enact laws that restrict our rights when it comes to firearms. The obvious answer to these laws are a lawsuit to deem them unconstitutional. The problem with that is that the cases take years to resolve and while we are waiting, the government is free to move forward with violating our rights. What if we could stop the legislation from being passed in the first place? I have an idea that may just work.
    My initial idea was to propose an initiative that would require a 2/3rds vote to pass a bill in congress and a 60% vote for an initiative if the topic is firearm related. Upon reviewing the Washington State Constitution, I realized that these requirements would easily be thrown out in court as they did with the initiative that required a super majority to raise taxes. I have come up with a solution that will garner the same outcome. Since firearm possession and use is a protected right in the Washington State Constitution, it is only fair that any restrictions or regulation on firearms be enacted via amendment. In order for an amendment to be passed, 2/3rds of each chamber must vote in favor of the amendment. So even if we cannot force them to have a super majority for a bill, we cold force a super majority for an amendment. This would set a much higher bar for legislation restricting our rights to pass.
    My initiative would codify specifically what items are protected by a constitutional right. This includes handguns, rifles, ammunition, magazines, attachments to firearms, and much more. If congress wanted to pass a ban on AR-15’s, it would require a constitutional amendment. If they want to ban high capacity magazines, it would require a constitutional amendment. Basically anything restricting the purchase, transfer, or possession of firearms and firearm related items, would require a constitutional amendment. My initiative would also prevent an initiative from infringing on our rights because a constitutional amendment cannot be made by initiative in Washington State.
    I have also proposed a ban on taxes on firearms and ammunition. You should not have to pay a tax to exercise a protected right. In this initiative, it would add a chapter to the Washington tax code exempting firearms and ammunition from all forms of excise tax. I fully believe that the government should not profit off my choice to exercise a right that is protect against infringement by the government. In my opinion that is infringement on its own.
    The only part of my proposal that may not go over well with every gun owner is the private party background check. In this initiative, firearm sales and transfers between private parties would go unrestricted until a system is put in place to make it easy to do a background check on a potential buyer. This system would have to be free to use, be able to be done on a personal device, and provide instant results on whether the prospective buyer is eligible to own a firearm. I will go into detail in a different post, but I believe in making sure you are not giving a firearm to a dangerous person. As long as it does not inconvenience the seller for more than a couple minutes, I believe it’s a good idea and could actually keep some guns out of the hands of criminals
    Unless I am missing something, this proposal should pass constitutional muster. Like I said, I have sent this proposal over to the experts on the subject to see if it is even viable. Even if it isn’t something that could work, I encourage every patriot out there to continue fighting for our rights and coming up with ideas like this one to fight back against the powers that want us unarmed.

I will update this post if I hear back from the experts.

-American citizen
Sign Up for My Weekly Newsletter for Great Updates on Firearm News and Bill Status

Saturday, February 8, 2020

How Can We Secure Our Elections

     One of the main topics that comes up during election season is "is our voting system secure?" The answer is unclear and that is unacceptable to me. With something a serious as our elections, we should have 100% confidence in the system we are using. It needs to be standardized across the nation. Some states use paper ballots at the polls, others use electronic voting booths, and some, like my state of Washington, have switched entirely to absentee ballots. Having so many different systems opens up many issues with vote counts, especially with mail in voting and the electronic voting booths.
    As we saw with the Iowa Caucus this year, electronics are not reliable enough nor are they secure enough to handle our voting. It also opens up the door to conspiracy theories about the vote being tampered with and personally, I am not ruling out that the vote was tampered with in Iowa. Lets face it, nearly any electronic system has the ability to be hacked or altered and that leads to the wide distrust in the voting system as we have seen in recent elections.
     Electronics aren't the only system that has issues with count accuracy and security. Anyone above the age of 30 most likely remembers the infamous "Hanging Chad" controversy. In a quick recap, Al gore was challenging George W. Bush in the 2000 election and needed to win Florida. Many Florida voters used Votomatic-style punched card ballots that, if not punched our correctly, resulted in a "hanging chad" and could lead to a vote not being counted by the machine. Long story short, hanging chads resulted in recounts and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States intervening in a controversial decision basically ending the recount effort and giving the win to Bush. 
     Paper absentee ballots also are surrounded by controversy. In nearly every election we here about a close race in which a recount is called. During that recount, it always seems that votes are "found" somewhere. Sometimes they are found at post offices, ballot drop boxes, and even once in the trunk of a car. That always leads to conspiracies from the losing party that the votes were manufactured. Absentee voting also leads to the controversial effort of ballot harvesting, in which volunteers go to peoples houses to help people fill out their ballots and take them to the drop off point. This practice is illegal in many states but is legal in some like California. Just prior to the 2018 midterm elections, the California State Legislature passed a bill making ballot harvesting legal. This result in a large amount of ballots being submitted late which delayed the results of the election. In a number of races, preliminary results were indicating that one candidate was in the lead but after the harvested ballots were tallied, the race flipped to the other candidate. This lead to wide spread speculation that the harvesting was corruptly done and that only ballots for one particular candidate were making it to the drop off.
     So, how can we make our elections secure? We need to get back to basics and yes, it includes requiring ID to vote. First and foremost, get rid all technology when it comes to casting votes. That means no voting by smart phone, internet, or even electronic polling stations. We need to go back to the good ole paper ballot. Paper is the most secure way of voting when done correctly. This means no more mailing or dropping off ballots in ballot boxes. You must either go to a polling station to cast your vote OR fill out an absentee ballot at home and personally take it to the precinct where it will be counted. This would eliminate any speculation that votes are being "found" or "corruptly harvested" because it shrinks the amount of people handling the ballot and ensures that the vote makes it to the secure counting facility.
    In order to secure our elections, we must require ID to vote. Not only will this stop the conspiracies about the possibility of ineligible people voting, but it will ensure that the person who filled the ballot out is the person dropping it off at the polling station. It is absolutely ridiculous that we do not have a Voter ID law in this country. The claims by the opponents of the law are unfounded and make very little sense. If it comes down to it, make a program where the government will pay for the ID if the cost would cause hardship to low income people. It would be very easy and inexpensive to remove all barriers when it comes to voter ID. In my opinion, if you are against Voter ID laws, then you are assuming that the votes by ineligible people are going in your favor. 
    Now, I'm sure some would say going to a polling station would be a hardship for some and like every rule, I think there could be exceptions. If someone demonstrates that it would be a legitimate hardship for them to travel to vote, then they could apply for a mail in absentee ballot. This wouldn't jeopardize the integrity of the election because a vast majority of the votes would be handled in person. There wouldn't be enough votes being mailed in to make it worth trying to intercept or harvest them in order to influence the outcome of the election, not because you actually think it's wrong. 
    Our elections are fundamental to the success of our nation. We must be confident in the integrity of our vote counts and right now, it appears there is very little trust that the elections are fair and free of manipulations. What I laid out above is the only way I can see our vote being secure to the point that the population will accept the outcome without a feeling of doubt. If we can't trust our voting system, how can we trust anything our government does. We need to get back to basics and fix this before we get to a point that there is no confidence in our elections and we are no better than other countries with corrupt elections. 

-American Citizen
Sign Up for My Weekly Newsletter for Great Updates on Firearm News and Bill Status

Monday, February 3, 2020

Parents Bill of Rights

   I never thought I would be writing about this but one of the newest bills in the Washington State Senate is dubbed "The Parents Bill of Rights". It is S.B. 6664 (this link will take you to the official website where you can download the text of the bill). This bill would codify the basic rights that parents have for making decisions for their children. Unfortunately we have reached a new low in society where this bill has become necessary to combat our children being indoctrinated by the liberal forces in our schools and at the doctors office.
   We as parents have the right to know about any medical treatment or medical advice our child is receiving, right? Wrong, and we have already lost some rights. Under Washington law, there are certain things that minors can do without parental consent such as, STD treatment, birth control, abortions and mental health care. Here is a link to a breakdown of what a minor can and cannot do under the current law. Now there is a push to change that completely. There is a movement to bring "health clinics" into high schools so that kids can get medical treatment and advice directly at school, without the knowledge of their parents. As of now, the push is only to offer contraceptive services and regular health checkups in the school. This alone should not be done without the parents consent, but I am not naive. This will ultimately expand into treatment for gender dysphoria and other controversial treatments that involve messing with kids hormones. This will all be done without the consent of parents because the law would allow kids to make these decisions "independently". I put that word in quotes because there have already been instances of school employees "advising" kids on these treatments, even going so far as to work with the courts to invoke the "Mature Minor Doctrine". This basically allows a minor to convince a judge that they are mature enough to make a medical decision on their own even if their parents do not consent to the treatment. Don't believe me? Here is a link to a 50 page report that was published in a law journal found on the USC Gould School of Law website: Overcoming the Parental Veto: How Transgender adolescents can access puberty-suppressing hormone treatment in the absence of parental consent under the mature minor doctrine.  I am not opposed to this type of treatment, I am a "to each their own" type of person, but not for kids, and definitely not for kids without the consent of their parents. If we allow kids to begin hormonal treatment prior to puberty, it will have life long effects that are irreversible should they change their mind as an adult. I personally don't agree with that. If an adult wants to do it, then so be it, but i do not believe a prepubescent child is mature enough to make that decision. This bill would rectify this and any other law like it by requiring parents to give consent to any minor receiving medical care or medical advice in any setting.
     What about education, particularly sex education? Again, under the law right now, you do not have any codified right to have a say in your child's education at public schools. There is a big push for "comprehensive sexual education" in the legislature right now. SB 5395 would overhaul the sex ed rules and make it mandatory for schools to teach it under the guidelines the state sets. Right now schools can choose whether to teach sex ed as the only requirement is for them to teach about HIV/AIDS. In Massachusetts they have adopted similar rules and I have previewed some of the material. It is shocking the types of things that are in the curriculum, many of them too graphic for me to feel comfortable including in this post. Let's just say that I almost had to stop reading when I saw that they were going to teach 12 year olds about anal sex, and went into graphic detail in the process. (I will post a link to an article at the bottom of this page that goes into more detail about what is in the curriculum. I encourage all readers to review it and see if they think its appropriate for schools to teach). This curriculum explains all the "genders" a person can be. It teaches kids that it is normal to have a different sexual orientation as early as 12 years old. While I have nothing against the LGBTQ community, the schools (aka. government) do not have the right to teach my children what is okay and what is not okay when it comes to sexuality, that is up to me as a parent. Many of these teaching directly contradict the religions of many students. If religion is barred from being taught in public school, then anything that directly contradicts religions should be as well. As of now, parents have the right to opt out of any sex ed, but again, I'm not naive and I don't trust that a bill won't be passed in the future removing the right of parents to opt out by making it a graduation requirement. The Parents Bill of Rights will rectify that by making it mandatory that parents be able to review curriculum and have the option to opt their kids out of any course about sex they don't agree with for any reason.
     It is sad that we have come to need this bill and I encourage every single parent to write there senators to get this bill moving forward because it is most likely going to stall in the liberal senate we have. We need to force a vote on this and at a minimum, put the senators on the record about who they believe should raise children in this state, parents or the government. We need to put the pressure on them now to get this bill through the committee and onto the floor where it has a chance of passing when senators are put on the spot. If this bill fails, parents rights are all but gone and the state can step in to raise our kids. I have laid out a couple of the big issues that this bill would fix but even things as simple as parents reviewing their kids report cards could come into jeopardy. This bill would prevent that from happening.
     The other thing that is not being brought up is a different effect on kids. With the opt out feature of these bills, it will put pressure on kids whose parents choose to opt them out. If a parents decides this education is not acceptable, the student will be segregated from the class and it will be known to all of classmates that he or she wasn't "cool enough" to take the sex class. This is going to lead to a new form of bullying in the schools. Kids that don't participate could be labeled as "sheltered" and be distanced from the different clicks in schools. To us adults, it may be a small thing to opt a child out, but the effect on the student could be much more severe. Small things like that are what lead to kids being depressed and feeling like they are less than others. A better solution would be to have an opt-in. Parents who do not want to take the responsibility of teaching their kids about sex can choose to enroll there kids in the sex ed class. This would eliminate the singling out of kids and would reduce the chance of bullying.
     We must fight back against the extreme left indoctrinating our children with their progressive ideology. If parents want to teach kids about these things, then so be it but it is not the schools place to push ideologies onto our children. Oh and I forgot to mention, all of this is being pushed by Planned Parenthood. Both the health clinics and the curriculum are designed and run by Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in...Planned Parenthood is going to have more control over a kids sexuality that the child's parent. To me, that is a terrifying thought.

As promised here is the link to the news article that has samples of the graphic material being taught in Maryland schools and that is coming to Washington State: Article about Comprehensive Sexual Education.
      Unfortunately, I cannot make it to the public hearing related to these bills, but I would encourage someone to do this. During the public comment phase, take some of the material in the link above and read it aloud to the committee and see how they react. I can would bet that they will tell you to stop. This is what they want to teach our children. something not even fit to be read aloud in front of a committee.

-American Citizen
Sign Up for My Weekly Newsletter for Great Updates on Firearm News and Bill Status

Ammunition Background Checks

     Washington is proposing some seriously restrictive gun laws this legislative session. Most I am 100% against, but there is one that is interesting to me. It is the background checks for ammunition purchases, but not in it's current form. This bill is currently flawed as it will basically eliminate online ammo sales to the state of Washington, but could it actually reduce gun related violence? I think it could and would reduce gun violence by a small percentage.
     I think its been pretty much conceded that criminals are going to get guns regardless of whether they legally can or not, and the same argument could be made about ammunition in most cases, but it could actually stop a few people from dying. I have been thinking about this proposal a lot and have come to the conclusion that it is worth a shot. Now, its not going to stop criminals from stealing a gun with ammunition already in it, those aren't the people that are going to be stopped by it. The people that will be stopped by it are the people who are ineligible to own firearms that are looking to do mass harm to people or commit a crime of passion. I can speak from experience that even under aged people can buy ammo. When I was 17, I could go to about any big box store and purchase ammo because they failed to ID me and I'm sure its no different now. Had there been a background check, I'm certain I would have walked out empty handed.
     Under aged buyers are not that big of a threat, but what about crimes of passion, such as domestic violence encounters? If a person is charged with domestic violence or has a restraining order filed against them, that person can no longer own a firearm, at least for the time being. A background check on ammo could prevent that person from getting a hold of a firearm and buying ammo when he intends to do harm with it. I understand that this will have limited effect, but if it could save a single life, why not save it.
     It could also prevent a student from acquiring ammo when they intend to do harm to their fellow students. It isn't going to stop an 18 year old from buy ammo but what about the 17 year old that took his dads gun and goes to Walmart to buy ammo to take to school? Those are the types of situations that this type of law could potentially have a positive effect on. It isn't a catch all and its not going to stop everyone, but if it stops one would be shooter, again why not stop them.
     I'm still skeptical, but it could even have a positive effect on gun violence committed by known criminals with stolen firearms. Right now, anyone with a valid ID can buy ammo regardless of their background. If a criminal has a gun, he can get ammo anywhere. Why would we want that? I don't, if the criminal is out of ammo, I want him to stay out of ammo or at least have some road blocks to getting more. If this law stops one more convenience store clerk from being shot, again, why not stop it.
     This bill needs to be modified for me to even approach getting on board with it. For starters, this should be exempted from online sales of ammo. I'm not sure if there is data, but I would bet money that there aren't very many incidents of gun violence where the ammo was purposely bought online to commit the act of violence. This law would be intended to stop underage buyers and crimes of passion. Those people generally buy on impulse and are not okay with waiting for the item to be shipped to them. If kids are buying ammo online and their parents don't know about it, that is a completely separate issue that needs to be dealt with in a different manner. I enjoy buying my ammo online because I can buy it in bulk for a cheaper cost than in a store. I won't support a bill that would take that away from me.
     Now, there are some things that would have to happen in order for me to get on board with this. First, and most importantly, this cannot lead to any sort of database that tracks who buys what. It is not the governments business what I buy or how many rounds I purchase. This goes for any background check for firearm related components. Next, It must be free. I don't want this to raise the price of ammunition because then it would be a de facto tax on a right and that is never okay. Third, it must be convenient to use. I cannot support a system that turns a 30 second transaction into a 30 minute ordeal. I should be able to walk up to the counter, punch in my social security number and get an instant result of whether I am eligible or not and if you have a CPL, that should be enough. If those three requirements are not met, then the idea should be completely scrapped.
     For those that completely disagree with me, rest assured. Even if this bill is passed this session, nothing will change. At this point in time, the federal government does not allow the use of it's instant background check system for ammunition purchases. The bill recognizes that and states "(2) Beginning on the date that is thirty days after the attorney general certifies that federal law has been amended to authorize the use of the national instant criminal background check system for ammunition transfers, a dealer must then initiate a check of that system before completing any ammunition transfer". This means that there is plenty of time to get this repealed because I don't see the federal government changing their rules any time soon.
   The point of all if this is that if there is a system in place that doesn't infringe on my rights and only cost me a minute or two, why not have it if it could potentially save a life. This isn't the right bill but the idea is worth looking at. In my opinion, this idea is the only "common sense" idea that has ever been proposed. Gun violence is a problem and I think it would be irresponsible of us gun owners to stand in the way of saving a life especially when it has a net zero effect on you.

-American Citizen

Democrats Pulling Shady Moves in Washington to Pass The AG's Agenda

     Drama is unfolding in Olympia over the magazine ban bills. The patriots of Washington breathed a small sigh of relief on February 19th ...